For once CHUCKY, "I agree with you!" We don't have the money and that's why I'm backing Biden! If it shows Beto could carry Texas for the Democrats. (that's 38 electoral votes) The Biden Beto ticket is the best ticket the Democrats could come up with in 2020! (that's ok, as long as Trump is gone!)

As a side note, they really should raise some tax's on the 1% ers and spend it on something everyone can get behind! Like "INFRASTRUCTURE!" It would create a bunch of good paying jobs for workers and we would all benefit on what they would create! How could you not get behind that??????? Lol

Did you even read the article, Eric? I don't see anything in it that would cost the government money. There might be a slight loss of revenue that could easily be more than compensated for by raising taxes on the wealthy. And the benefits of forgiving student loans would probably pay for itself ultimately.

I have to disagree with both of you on this. Biden is probably the worst choice among Democratic candidates, and Beto might be the second worst choice. Biden's time has passed politically. He wants to take us back to Obama era politics and that is not what we need. Plus, there are his gaffes and all his other negatives. He is sort of the Hillary of 2020.

We need investment in society that will pay off in the long run. That is how we pay for things, along with raising taxes on the high end of the income scale. Infrastructure is a big part of that and people like Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren, etc. understand that. Healthcare, education and research are also examples of investment in the future that should pay off. I am not sure about Biden or Beto in that regard. By the way, I predict that the Democratic ticket will not be 2 white guys. There might be one white guy, but I doubt that they both will be white guys.

Did you even read the article, Eric? I don't see anything in it that would cost the government money. There might be a slight loss of revenue that could easily be more than compensated for by raising taxes on the wealthy. And the benefits of forgiving student loans would probably pay for itself ultimately.

I have to disagree with both of you on this. Biden is probably the worst choice among Democratic candidates, and Beto might be the second worst choice. Biden's time has passed politically. He wants to take us back to Obama era politics and that is not what we need. Plus, there are his gaffes and all his other negatives. He is sort of the Hillary of 2020.

We need investment in society that will pay off in the long run. That is how we pay for things, along with raising taxes on the high end of the income scale. Infrastructure is a big part of that and people like Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren, etc. understand that. Healthcare, education and research are also examples of investment in the future that should pay off. I am not sure about Biden or Beto in that regard. By the way, I predict that the Democratic ticket will not be 2 white guys. There might be one white guy, but I doubt that they both will be white guys.

Here's the fundamentally problem I have with a Medicare for all. (it's the basic of all basic) The majority of people now a day's, get their Health Insurance paid for by their employer. So their going to shift the financial burden of paying for it to the government. While the employers getting off "SCOTT FREE!" THANK YOU VERY MUCH U.S. GOVERNMENT!!!! I have not seen any good models of that kind of shift that won't bankrupt the country! (it's just too radical in my book!)

Speaking of money.

We are running a trillion dollar deficit a year now in the Federal budget and it's going to get worse! We eventual will go broke if we don't change the model soon, let alone adding any new expensive programs. Trump is right, to pay for everything the progressive want, you would have to have a tax base similar to the "Socialistic country's! In other words, Trump hanging the Socialistic label on the Far Left is kinda correct! The people in a General election won't vote for that! So you will have 4 more years of Donald Trump as President!

I'm sorry if I see a bigger picture of Donald Trump being the most dangerous President we ever had! (he must be defeated at all cost!) So far the only candidate that I see, that for sure can win the 3 states that this whole election comes down too. (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) Is Biden!!!!!! I heard one annalist say, Trump has already got enough electoral votes in the Bank, that he only needs to win 1 of those 3 battle ground states. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Just 1 of those states and Trump's the winner again!!!! Are you going to tell me, all of those other Progressive Democratic candidates are a sure thing to win all 3 of those states????

Once Trump is out of the picture, the Republican party is in big trouble! They sold their values to the values of Trump and their is only 1 Trump! After Trump is gone, their is no one to takes his place. So run any progressive Democrat you want as President after that! (it's no big deal) But not in 2020!

Don't take your eye off the ball!

The number 1 priority with the American public is the elect ability of the Democratic candidate in 2020! Like it or not, that's Joe Biden! If Beto could carry Texas, that's a great insurance policy against Wisconsin going for Trump again!

Biden is not my favorite candidate, but he wins Ohio and who ever wins Ohio usually wins the whole ball of wax.

Besides because of his age, he might just be an 1 term President by his choice. Then that opens it up again for everyone else. The smartest guy in the room and the one that comes off as the most Presidential is Mayor Pete. He's young, so when the country matures some more, maybe he will become President 1 day.

The biggest loser so far in my book is Kamela Harris! Why did she bring up that Busing crap up in the first debate? She would have been the perfect running mate for Joe. (not now after she totally whizz him off) Imagine this scenario, Biden and Harris wins the 2020 Presidential election. Biden by his choice steps down and Harris runs on her own as President. (She is now in a very strong position) The Republican nominee is Nikki Haley! (very plausible) Now you have 2 women of color running against each other, so now that can't be used against either one of them! If the Biden Presidency went well enough, she probably wins the Presidency! But because she played that Busing race card of 40 years ago, history could have just got changed! She in effect, shot herself in her own foot! Lol

Regarding "electability," voters are horrible at doing that and it usually ends up with them choosing candidates that are not the best when voters use that as a criteria. Specifically, if you are talking about winning "crucial swing states," Sanders and Warren are actually the strongest at addressing the woes of "working class white voters" and getting their votes. Their programs also do more to address their concerns. Frankly, though, Trump is trailing in not only those 3 states but also in several others that he won in 2016. I think any halfway decent candidate should be able to beat him. To me, it is more a matter of choosing which one would make the best president, not an issue of considering "electability," which history has shown that voters usually get wrong anyway. Beto could help with Texas but that is far from certain and should not be necessary to win the Electoral College anyway. By the way, the interstate compact to nullify the Electoral College has gained momentum and is nearing the required number of votes to do away with the Electoral College, but that is unlikely to happen by 2020.

Kamala Harris was widely perceived to have one the first debate, and the busing issue was a big part of that. I can see why she did that, and I think there is a good chance that she will be the VP candidate for whoever wins the nomination, but we shall see.

On healthcare, that was not the topic of the link in this post, but since it is one of the most important topics to voters in this election, I would suggest that we consider the fact that the U.S. is the only "wealthy" nation which makes people rely on private health insurance. Every other "modern" nation -- and that is a lot of them -- plus some nations that one would not suspect, have a national healthcare program, and the DO manage to pay for it. Furthermore, it saves consumers a great deal of money and make healthcare convenient and accessible for everyone, leading to better healthcare outcomes. To say that it cannot be done in the United States is utterly ridiculous. It does generally involve taxes, mostly on higher income brackets, and yes, governments have the right to do that. Even a moderate tax increase would be more than offset by the savings to the public. Employers should love that too, because they won't have to pay so much for health insurance. It is a win win, or to put it more accurately, the United States long ago, in contrast to virtually every other nation, chose a lose lose situation regarding healthcare. (It is a win for the health insurance industry and some doctors who can charge more by having a for profit healthcare system, but it is a lose lose situation for everyone else.) If you haven't seen any good models of how this is done, I don't know what to say. Just look at how any other nation does it! (I have and have also been to doctors in Taiwan, where the is a public system in place.) You have obviously not been looking in the right places. There is a lot of confusion about what medicare for all means. Generally, it does not mean eliminating private health insurance or making people go to the doctors that the government wants you to go to. It means having a public healthcare program, with a private option, generally speaking. I could not find a single nation which had eliminated private health insurance when I checked recently, so, I would not call medicare for all radical at all; it is basically the international norm in fact, with the caveat that private health insurance is still available. I don't think the plans of any of the Democratic candidates actually proposes to eliminate private health insurance. Even Bernie's plan would still have supplemental insurance available. However, it would no longer be necessary to have it, and would probably result in most people replacing private health insurance (if they had it in the first place) with the public healthcare program.

I agree that the Republican Party is in big trouble. I think they already are, and Trump is a big part of the problem. Many Republican legislators once again, are retiring because they see the writing on the wall. If Trump is out of the picture, it will be even clearer that his strategies and cult of personality is no longer working for them.

The reason that I think the ticket will not be 2 white guys, by the way, does have to do with politics. Like it or not, race and gender do influence voting. Most nonwhites and most women vote for Democrats, and they would like to see something other than a couple of wealthy old white guys represent them. By the way, the inverse it true of Republicans. They use race by appealing to white racists.

Regarding "electability," voters are horrible at doing that and it usually ends up with them choosing candidates that are not the best when voters use that as a criteria. Specifically, if you are talking about winning "crucial swing states," Sanders and Warren are actually the strongest at addressing the woes of "working class white voters" and getting their votes. Their programs also do more to address their concerns. Frankly, though, Trump is trailing in not only those 3 states but also in several others that he won in 2016. I think any halfway decent candidate should be able to beat him. To me, it is more a matter of choosing which one would make the best president, not an issue of considering "electability," which history has shown that voters usually get wrong anyway. Beto could help with Texas but that is far from certain and should not be necessary to win the Electoral College anyway. By the way, the interstate compact to nullify the Electoral College has gained momentum and is nearing the required number of votes to do away with the Electoral College, but that is unlikely to happen by 2020.

Kamala Harris was widely perceived to have one the first debate, and the busing issue was a big part of that. I can see why she did that, and I think there is a good chance that she will be the VP candidate for whoever wins the nomination, but we shall see.

On healthcare, that was not the topic of the link in this post, but since it is one of the most important topics to voters in this election, I would suggest that we consider the fact that the U.S. is the only "wealthy" nation which makes people rely on private health insurance. Every other "modern" nation -- and that is a lot of them -- plus some nations that one would not suspect, have a national healthcare program, and the DO manage to pay for it. Furthermore, it saves consumers a great deal of money and make healthcare convenient and accessible for everyone, leading to better healthcare outcomes. To say that it cannot be done in the United States is utterly ridiculous. It does generally involve taxes, mostly on higher income brackets, and yes, governments have the right to do that. Even a moderate tax increase would be more than offset by the savings to the public. Employers should love that too, because they won't have to pay so much for health insurance. It is a win win, or to put it more accurately, the United States long ago, in contrast to virtually every other nation, chose a lose lose situation regarding healthcare. (It is a win for the health insurance industry and some doctors who can charge more by having a for profit healthcare system, but it is a lose lose situation for everyone else.) If you haven't seen any good models of how this is done, I don't know what to say. Just look at how any other nation does it! (I have and have also been to doctors in Taiwan, where the is a public system in place.) You have obviously not been looking in the right places. There is a lot of confusion about what medicare for all means. Generally, it does not mean eliminating private health insurance or making people go to the doctors that the government wants you to go to. It means having a public healthcare program, with a private option, generally speaking. I could not find a single nation which had eliminated private health insurance when I checked recently, so, I would not call medicare for all radical at all; it is basically the international norm in fact, with the caveat that private health insurance is still available. I don't think the plans of any of the Democratic candidates actually proposes to eliminate private health insurance. Even Bernie's plan would still have supplemental insurance available. However, it would no longer be necessary to have it, and would probably result in most people replacing private health insurance (if they had it in the first place) with the public healthcare program.

I agree that the Republican Party is in big trouble. I think they already are, and Trump is a big part of the problem. Many Republican legislators once again, are retiring because they see the writing on the wall. If Trump is out of the picture, it will be even clearer that his strategies and cult of personality is no longer working for them.

The reason that I think the ticket will not be 2 white guys, by the way, does have to do with politics. Like it or not, race and gender do influence voting. Most nonwhites and most women vote for Democrats, and they would like to see something other than a couple of wealthy old white guys represent them. By the way, the inverse it true of Republicans. They use race by appealing to white racists.

..

When the Democrats started planing their strategy of a balanced ticket. (they came up with this) If a White male gets the nomination, a women or an minority would be the ideal candidate to compliment the ticket! So Kamala Harris would be the perfect choice, provided she didn't alienate the nominee! (which she already did) If you look at the Obama Biden relationship, they truly were friends and worked well together. But Mrs. Harris apparently didn't get the memo! Even Mike Pence is Trumps lap dog, so having your VP beat you up in the primaries. Then turn on a dime and say it was all in the spirit of the fight right, and then expect to be forgiven! I don't think so, especially since Biden played the role so perfectly for Obama. Yes I know, Reagan pick old man Bush to be his VP, even though he ran for the top dog spot too! But their Republicans! Lol

I'll put this in a humorous way to illustrate my point of elect ability and having your favorite progressive candidate beat Donald Trump at the same time.

A fire breaks out on a home and is burning out of control! (Trumps Presidency) So the fire department is called to put out the fire. (the Democrats in 2020) At the same time, a neighborhood cat got real frightened and ran down the street and climb a tree. (he's out of harms way, but the firemen are going to have to go up there to get him down) When the firemen arrive they see both situations and have to make a decision! Do they spend all their efforts and men to first put out the fire that is burning out of control on the home. Or do they divert some of their men at the same time to get the cat out of the tree! The head firemen thinks they can do both at the same time! Then the fire chief shows up and it's his call.

What should the fire chief do?

I personally think because their is so much at stake, they should spend all the efforts in putting out the fire first. (beating Donald Trump and get him out of office) The cat is safe for now and we will get to him eventually! (getting a progressive Democratic President) Because if we are wrong and think we can do both at the same time and fail. That Wild Fire (Trump) keeps burning! Lol

Yes, put out the fire. And who better to fight fire with fire than "The Bern?" Democrats need a candidate who will excite young voters and middle class voters and result in a good turnout. I don't see Biden as being that person, which leads me to ask. A. What makes you think that Biden will be the nominee? Yes, he has been leading in the polls but he has been losing ground. Any candidate with his familiarity factor has a big initial advantage, but it won't necessarily last. B. What makes you think that he will get more votes than some other Democratic Party nominee in the general election? This is where the "electability" fallacy comes into play. It's the person who excites the most voters who has the best chance of winning, not the person who is "next in line" or who has the greatest establishment connections.

Bernie Sanders won Michigan and Wisconsin in the 2016 primaries in fact. He would likely win more of those rust belt states than Biden. In fact, I know "a ton of people" (figuratively speaking), including myself, who think that Bernie likely would have won the Electoral College in 2016 had he been the nominee. Republicans are afraid of Sanders and Warren, because they sense that either of these candidates could beat them, and thus the "crazy Bernie" and "Pocahontas" epithets from the liar in chief. Of course, Trump sees Biden as a threat too, and thus the "sleepy Joe" nickname. But according to 538, which does aggregate polling, since there are so many Democratic candidates, all of them are at under 50% chance of winning the nomination, including Biden.

Harris would still be a good VP choice. She scored big points with her busing comments among other things. We will have to see how it goes. Unfortunately, we have an adversarial political system, so the candidates feel they need to critique each other in order to stand out and gain supporters. The fact is, there is much that most of the candidates on the Democratic side agree upon about topics across the board.

Yes, put out the fire. And who better to fight fire with fire than "The Bern?" Democrats need a candidate who will excite young voters and middle class voters and result in a good turnout. I don't see Biden as being that person, which leads me to ask. A. What makes you think that Biden will be the nominee? Yes, he has been leading in the polls but he has been losing ground. Any candidate with his familiarity factor has a big initial advantage, but it won't necessarily last. B. What makes you think that he will get more votes than some other Democratic Party nominee in the general election? This is where the "electability" fallacy comes into play. It's the person who excites the most voters who has the best chance of winning, not the person who is "next in line" or who has the greatest establishment connections.

Bernie Sanders won Michigan and Wisconsin in the 2016 primaries in fact. He would likely win more of those rust belt states than Biden. In fact, I know "a ton of people" (figuratively speaking), including myself, who think that Bernie likely would have won the Electoral College in 2016 had he been the nominee. Republicans are afraid of Sanders and Warren, because they sense that either of these candidates could beat them, and thus the "crazy Bernie" and "Pocahontas" epithets from the liar in chief. Of course, Trump sees Biden as a threat too, and thus the "sleepy Joe" nickname. But according to 538, which does aggregate polling, since there are so many Democratic candidates, all of them are at under 50% chance of winning the nomination, including Biden.

Harris would still be a good VP choice. She scored big points with her busing comments among other things. We will have to see how it goes. Unfortunately, we have an adversarial political system, so the candidates feel they need to critique each other in order to stand out and gain supporters. The fact is, there is much that most of the candidates on the Democratic side agree upon about topics across the board.

The young voters as a group are a dud! This figure is a few years old, but they had a participation rate of a whopping 16.5%! Remember in the General election the Democratic nominee, needs not just Democrats, but Independents and a few decent Republicans to vote for them. The best way to lose the Independents and the few cross over Republicans is hanging the Socialist label on the Democratic nominee! The Sean Hannity's of the world will claim the Green New deal will cost 90 Trillion dollars! Plus the Medicare for all will cost tens of Trillions of dollars to pay for it and do away with private Insurance. This may not be all true, but enough people will believe it and shy away the Democratic Nominee! I watch Fox News, so I know what they are saying!

For once CHUCKY, "I agree with you!" We don't have the money and that's why I'm backing Biden! If it shows Beto could carry Texas for the Democrats. (that's 38 electoral votes) The Biden Beto ticket is the best ticket the Democrats could come up with in 2020! (that's ok, as long as Trump is gone!)

As a side note, they really should raise some tax's on the 1% ers and spend it on something everyone can get behind! Like "INFRASTRUCTURE!" It would create a bunch of good paying jobs for workers and we would all benefit on what they would create! How could you not get behind that??????? Lol

Maybe some of the Democrat presidential candidates could donate some of there money.
Warren net worth 12 million
Biden 9 million
Harris 6 million
Sanders 2.5million
Remember these people made there money from politics. Sanders has never held a regular job in his life. Career politicians are a cancer.

Several politicians in the U.S. are estimated to be billionaires, led by Donald Trump's estimated 3.1 billion dollars, and you are complaining about people with net worths between 2.5 and 12 million dollars, Chucky?

Eric, I am aware that young people have been voting at low rates. That means that they represent a large pool of potential votes. That is who I think politicians should put more effort into courting their votes. The reason they don't vote more is that they need someone to inspire them to vote rather than voting as a matter of habit. Asking people you already know are going to vote for you, to vote for you is not going to help win elections. Also, I am not just talking about young voters, but also working class voters who would vote for an economic populist Democrat.